I've been saying this since I watched them over and over and over and over again on news stations the day of and the many months after.

Brought down by fire my @$$.

Anyone who believes that needs to study building demolition, specifically controlled demolitions.

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered. Not one that I've found has even
partially collapsed from an aircraft crashing into it.

The melting point of the construction-grade steel girders is 2,795 degrees, well beyond what jet fuel and the associated things being burnt in it's
path could possibly heat the steel to.

Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Well, to be exact, construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That's a proven fact, as
can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com...

Plus if a plane hit that far up, the building would have toppled, not fell straight down like in a demolition...so many people buy that bull$h!t
theory...I guess the fluoride in the water is really starting to work along side our failing education system.

Oh, and during clean up, DAYS after the 'crash' there was *still* molten steel in the bottom floors....do the math over 2700 degrees, and held for
*how* long?

Right, jet fuel. Whatever.

*rolls eyes*

Sorry for ranting - just so sick of people claiming 1+1 = 3,451 to the quintupled power by the root of 37.

I read that thermite paint was used on the girders of the towers. Bldg 7 actually looks like a controlled demolition

If it does ever come out that it was a demo' job. To the point that no one could argue it. The ever growing list of people that would have to be put
on trial for an even longer list of crimes would be mind boggling.

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered.

so i did that the other day, because i was interested in the small plane that crashed into that family's house in massachusetts. and there are a lot
of small planes that have crashed into regular houses. maybe i am nuts, but you figure that houses are not made with steel columns, so they should
probably suffer more damage than the Towers, even though they are being hit by a small plane rather than commercial jet. i guess you can say maybe the
fires in the Towers were more out of control because firefighters couldn't get up there to fight them. but even with the gaping holes in the side of
the Towers, they looked so stable. i think they all were controlled. but 7 especially. it was not structurally sound, so they demolished it to make
sure it wouldn't go down unexpectedly and injure more people. hope i did the quote thing right, never done it before.

lol. That footage is unique to that video. If flashes were visible they would have been visible in in more than just that YouTube. Which they
aren't.

That video is supposedly fake. There was a series of blown out glass in a vertical line (as shown in the vids below), but some "debunker," trying to
undermine the truth movement, added the flashes and some other things to the vid above. My guess a government shill trying to keep anyone from taking
the idea of detonations in WTC 7 seriously.

Explosive flash WTC 7

WTC 7 - A flash on 43rd floor before both towers collapse.

Recall witness Jennings statements on explosions in building 7 prior to the collapse of the towers.

Or a window pane momentarily reflecting light as its blown out with all the others, after the collapse is already underway. Besides, the
collapse was initiated down low, not up high where that "flash" occurs in the YouTube.

The overpressure of the building collapsing blew out a lot of windows due to out rushing compressed air. You can call that explosive force and I would
agree. Every floor, and on the twin towers, too.

On the twin towers, Imagine dropping an acre of one foot thick concrete slab from ten feet. Poof!

Now drop a hundred one acre floors of concrete one top of each other. People equate such energy release with explosives, a close match.

Except for all the pop, pop hypersonic crack of demo charges just at the beginning of collapses.

Any way, beams at the bottom were cut during debris removal by thermal lance. You can see the slag in the beginning of this video on that very
same beam…

How did you arrive at the notion this was the very same column? The columns do not look the same. The bottom of the cut being made by the worker with
the thermic lance is very close to the ground. The bottom of the cut in the angled column from the wreckage is much higher up. Clearly not the
same column.

Also, in the debate over this, several of the removal crew workers have stated that a choker chain from a crane was attached to steel members they
were cutting - to control how and where they fell! They did not simply slice up steel members without having the means to control how they
fell. These are not tree limbs. Cutting into steel members without knowing what stresses are on it can cause it to whip back and kill someone,
especially when it weighs tons. They also describe that they would only cut three sides, then the crane operator would push over the column for a
final cut before removal - CONTROLLED cleanup, not slicing away willy-nilly.

Besides, images of angled cuts of structural columns appeared BEFORE cleanup crews got to work.

(source: [url=http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/]James Nachtwey

The wider angle shot of that cut column: taken 9/12, steel removal had not yet begun.

The above image raises a question regarding the debunkers claim this column was cut by cleanup crews - where was this worker STANDING when he made
this cut? Are we to believe he was reaching up over his head, standing in a very unstable pile of rubble while using this lance - and do you really
contend this is the same column between the two photos? Obviously it is not.

a reply to: Mr Headshot
You're dreaming!
We're supposed to just go to work inning buildings knowing that they are pre wired for demo just in case the building next door goes down?
For safety reasons?
Who's paying you?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.